R v James Dymond

R v James Dymond

Any misapplication of the sentencing guideline was immaterial because the sentence was substantially reduced for mitigation, but the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's criminal record justified the sentence imposed.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: James Dymond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application for extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Handling Stolen Goods, Driving Offences, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Sentencing Handling Stolen Goods Driving Offences Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

James Dymond

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing guideline was misapplied
  3. 3 Whether there was justification to extend time for appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Any misapplication of the sentencing guideline was immaterial because the sentence was substantially reduced for mitigation, but the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's criminal record justified the sentence imposed.

Court Disposition

application for extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Refusal to extend time for appeal
  • Leave to appeal refused